RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Sheehan

When you said, "The issue is not whether Cindy Sheehan has the right to
speak but rather whether her diatribes constitute an attack on her own
country and community in a time of war," I took that to mean that you do
see her diatribes as an attack on her own country and community in a
time of war. If that's true, then I don't understand when you think
criticism of war is not an attack on the country.

Michael:

I'm glad you asked the question you did. I'm horrified that I may
have given the impression you apparently got. I should have been more
clear.

For me, the key factor is whether it's done on America's shores or
not. To me there is a HUGE difference between criticizing a war that
one believes to be unjust, and taking such criticism overseas, as
Sheehan has done. I have near-unlimited tolerance for the former, and
very very little for the latter. When she was doing her thing in
Crawford, she was just another annoying war protestor. Seeing her
appear outside the US Embassy in Madrid, and alongside Hugo Chavez in
Caracas is another matter entirely, and to me, comes very very close
to giving encouragement to America's enemies - the same enemies that
killed her son. How long until she shows up in Havana? - note, I'm in
favor of greatly relaxing the embargo against Cuba, since it should
hasten the arrival of the day when Cubans do to Castro what the
Romanians did to Ceauşescu.

No, I absolutely do not believe all wars are justified. For instance,
I believe we should not have been involved in the Bosnian conflict,
and we should not be involved in Sudan or the Ivory Coast, because I
don't believe American interests were or are at stake. Whereas in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea I believe American interests
are at stake.

Consider Vietnam. While I would have disagreed with all the
protestors trying to end that conflict, I don't necessarily consider
any of them unpatriotic for trying to end it, as I admit there were
some valid viewpoints. However, working within the US to raise
consciousness about why one believes a war to be unjust is entirely
different from what for instance, Jane Fonda did.

-Derek

Dear Mike;
   
  You used the phrase "in a time of war". Which declared war are you referring to where Congress issued a "State of War Exists between the government of the USA and..."
   
  I have seen no such proclamation lately - have you??? The alst time was issued was The Declaration of War on Japan Germany and Italy.
   
  Secondly, how do you declare "War" on an Ideology such as "Terrorism" and then attack it with technology???
   
  As the French said when they were fighting to retain their colonial empire of Indochine: "The Viet Minh have not read the French Armee Field Force Manual and so do not fight accordingly".
   
  The word " War" is being blatantly used by this Bush Regime to create connations and allusions where none exist of a real "War" to get the people of this country behind their War on Terrorism and the excesses it is using to destroy the US Consitution whenever it gets in the way of what the Bushitas want to do...
   
  This despite the costs to the taxpayers of a catastrophic national debt and the mothers and fathers whose children are being used as a blood sacrifice to a meglomaniacal desire to bring a "Dictatorial Democracy" to the Mid-East at the point of a bayonet.
   
  Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian

"Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:
  When you said, "The issue is not whether Cindy Sheehan has the right to
speak but rather whether her diatribes constitute an attack on her own
country and community in a time of war," I took that to mean that you do
see her diatribes as an attack on her own country and community in a
time of war. If that's true, then I don't understand when you think
criticism of war is not an attack on the country.

This presumption, that a citizen of the United States may speak
freely within the confines of the United States, but not outside
them, implies rather strongly that "freedom of speech", whatever
that is, is _granted_ by the _Government_ of the United States, and
somehow disappears if one leaves the country.

That diverges radically from my understanding of "rights" (whatever
those are), which I had heretofore presumed originated with the
_individual_, with the First Amendment of the US Constitution only
attempting to guarantee that the US government would not infringe
upon the particular one of "freedom of speech".

Ms. Sheehan is a well-intentioned woman whose son has been killed,
in a cause which she considers wrong, and she is trying to make his
death matter. Let her talk. Wrong or right, her words will have to
survive in the marketplace of ideas.

[Just to reveal my own personal bias, if her presentations at all
undermine the massive propaganda machinery of the whole US
government, I say good for her.]

Regards,
Allen Rice

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:

Michael:

I'm glad you asked the question you did. I'm horrified that I may
have given the impression you apparently got. I should have been

more

clear.

For me, the key factor is whether it's done on America's shores or
not. To me there is a HUGE difference between criticizing a war

that

one believes to be unjust, and taking such criticism overseas, as
Sheehan has done. I have near-unlimited tolerance for the former,

and

very very little for the latter. When she was doing her thing in
Crawford, she was just another annoying war protestor. Seeing her
appear outside the US Embassy in Madrid, and alongside Hugo Chavez

in

Caracas is another matter entirely, and to me, comes very very

close

to giving encouragement to America's enemies - the same enemies

that

killed her son. How long until she shows up in Havana? - note,

I'm in

favor of greatly relaxing the embargo against Cuba, since it should
hasten the arrival of the day when Cubans do to Castro what the
Romanians did to Ceauºescu.

No, I absolutely do not believe all wars are justified. For

instance,

I believe we should not have been involved in the Bosnian conflict,
and we should not be involved in Sudan or the Ivory Coast, because

I

don't believe American interests were or are at stake. Whereas in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea I believe American

interests

are at stake.

Consider Vietnam. While I would have disagreed with all the
protestors trying to end that conflict, I don't necessarily

consider

Dear Allen;
   
  Of course there is the alternate spectacle of an American overseas saying or doing something and finding out they broke a local law then saying But I'm an American!!!
   
  Well - looks like we got a little oopsy here Mr. American visitor.
   
  Now if the country Sheehan is visiting says it's okay to say what you want to say about America while over there it's okay - just watch what you say about their country when over there.....
   
  In other words, when in Rome do as the Romans do - but what the heck why anybody would want to visit Rome, GA. beats the heck outa me is there any there - there?
   
  Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian
  
Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
  This presumption, that a citizen of the United States may speak
freely within the confines of the United States, but not outside
them, implies rather strongly that "freedom of speech", whatever
that is, is _granted_ by the _Government_ of the United States, and
somehow disappears if one leaves the country.

That diverges radically from my understanding of "rights" (whatever
those are), which I had heretofore presumed originated with the
_individual_, with the First Amendment of the US Constitution only
attempting to guarantee that the US government would not infringe
upon the particular one of "freedom of speech".

Ms. Sheehan is a well-intentioned woman whose son has been killed,
in a cause which she considers wrong, and she is trying to make his
death matter. Let her talk. Wrong or right, her words will have to
survive in the marketplace of ideas.

[Just to reveal my own personal bias, if her presentations at all
undermine the massive propaganda machinery of the whole US
government, I say good for her.]

Regards,
Allen Rice

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:

Michael:

I'm glad you asked the question you did. I'm horrified that I may
have given the impression you apparently got. I should have been

more

clear.

For me, the key factor is whether it's done on America's shores or
not. To me there is a HUGE difference between criticizing a war

that

one believes to be unjust, and taking such criticism overseas, as
Sheehan has done. I have near-unlimited tolerance for the former,

and

very very little for the latter. When she was doing her thing in
Crawford, she was just another annoying war protestor. Seeing her
appear outside the US Embassy in Madrid, and alongside Hugo Chavez

in

Caracas is another matter entirely, and to me, comes very very

close

to giving encouragement to America's enemies - the same enemies

that

killed her son. How long until she shows up in Havana? - note,

I'm in

favor of greatly relaxing the embargo against Cuba, since it should
hasten the arrival of the day when Cubans do to Castro what the
Romanians did to Ceau�escu.

No, I absolutely do not believe all wars are justified. For

instance,

I believe we should not have been involved in the Bosnian conflict,
and we should not be involved in Sudan or the Ivory Coast, because

I

don't believe American interests were or are at stake. Whereas in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea I believe American

interests

are at stake.

Consider Vietnam. While I would have disagreed with all the
protestors trying to end that conflict, I don't necessarily

consider

any of them unpatriotic for trying to end it, as I admit there were
some valid viewpoints. However, working within the US to raise
consciousness about why one believes a war to be unjust is entirely
different from what for instance, Jane Fonda did.

-Derek

  SPONSORED LINKS
        U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan California politics

Allen:

I don't think what I said implies that freedom of speech is at all
somehow granted by the government.

I believe one really does have a responsibility to act differently
when one is outside the USA. When one is abroad, one is a
representative of the USA as a whole and should act that way. And,
certain limits should be respected by civilized people even with the
USA -- such as not burning American flags. I would not support
government restrictions on any of these things though. It seems that
some people on this board are making the mistake of confusing
positions I espouse with supporting government restrictions of the
same.

People should be free to make asses of themselves even overseas, just
as Cindy Sheehan is proving over and over.

Yes I consider Sheehan a traitor and yes I think her actions are
probably giving encouragement and relief to the enemy and causing many
more Casey Sheehans to be killed.

All that said, I certainly agree that it is not per se unpatriotic to
oppose and protest a war.

Derek

Derek,

Actually, if one buys the formal Bush policy, as many supporters of
the invasion seem to do, that "rights" do not exist for the
detainees at Guantanamo, because that is not part of the US, then
that would certainly imply some correlation between the existence of
rights and the boundaries of the nation. I don't recall what has
been your position on this?

Further, the statement

"When one is abroad, one is a representative of the USA as a whole
and should act that way." is surely nonsensical. If both Ms.
Sheehan, and a whole lot of US troops are simultaneously abroad, and
saying and doing diametrically different things, how can both
possibly be "representatives"? The implied solution, to silence one
or the other, seems to me inconsistent with a regard for "freedom of
speech."

When and if I go abroad, I will be no more or less than what I have
been my whole life - a representative of Allen Rice. That I can
pull off reasonably well. For any group to which I belong that is
much larger, it's likely I will be missing some facet of its
expression. It would be a tad arrogant for me to claim to be its
representative.

Regards,
Allen Rice

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:

Allen:

I don't think what I said implies that freedom of speech is at all
somehow granted by the government.

I believe one really does have a responsibility to act differently
when one is outside the USA. When one is abroad, one is a
representative of the USA as a whole and should act that way. And,
certain limits should be respected by civilized people even with

the

USA -- such as not burning American flags. I would not support
government restrictions on any of these things though. It seems

that

some people on this board are making the mistake of confusing
positions I espouse with supporting government restrictions of the
same.

People should be free to make asses of themselves even overseas,

just

as Cindy Sheehan is proving over and over.

Yes I consider Sheehan a traitor and yes I think her actions are
probably giving encouragement and relief to the enemy and causing

many

more Casey Sheehans to be killed.

All that said, I certainly agree that it is not per se unpatriotic

to

Allen:

What has happened in Guantanamo is a disgrace.

As far as I know, Congress has not yet declared war against either
Venezuela or Spain. Or Iraq, for that matter. Oh wait, we're not at
war with Iraq; we "liberated" it, didn't we? We're at war with a
concept/tactic/strategy we call "terrorism."

While we may have significant disagreements with Hugo Chavez, he is not
our enemy, nor is anyone in Madrid (except the Islamic terrorists who
blew up the subway stations three years ago). And while we did attack
Cuba many decades ago, we are not in a state of war with Castro's tiny
island.

I find it disturbing that you see enemies all over the world who really
pose no serious threat to our national interest. Venezuela's greatest
threat to the United States would be a refusal to sell us oil, which
would be a major economic loss to them. Chavez can rail against us all
he wants on television, but he is no threat. North Korea may be a
nuclear power, but if they cannot even feed their own population, how
loyal do you think Kim Jong Il's troops really are to their supreme
leader?

Before we invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein supposedly had the fourth largest
military apparatus in the world (according to U.S. intelligence reports,
and we know how spot on those tend to be), yet his entire army was
utterly defeated in less than six weeks. By a U.S. military force of
fewer than 600,000 troops.

Sorry, but I can't see the logic of this argument. Cindy Sheehan may be
an annoying media whore, and she may even be a stooge of the loony left,
but she lost her son for a cause that does not make any sense to her,
and all she's trying to do is point out the obvious.

Terry Floyd

North Korea's Taepo Dong 2 missile can reach the Western United States.

Derek,

  So you believe that laws against "treason" should be repealed? If not, what acts should legally be considered "treason" and remain against the law, and how would you justify such laws in libertarian terms?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Allen:

I don't think what I said implies that freedom of speech is at all
somehow granted by the government.

I believe one really does have a responsibility to act differently
when one is outside the USA. When one is abroad, one is a
representative of the USA as a whole and should act that way. And,
certain limits should be respected by civilized people even with the
USA -- such as not burning American flags. I would not support
government restrictions on any of these things though. It seems that
some people on this board are making the mistake of confusing
positions I espouse with supporting government restrictions of the
same.

People should be free to make asses of themselves even overseas, just
as Cindy Sheehan is proving over and over.

Yes I consider Sheehan a traitor and yes I think her actions are
probably giving encouragement and relief to the enemy and causing many
more Casey Sheehans to be killed.

All that said, I certainly agree that it is not per se unpatriotic to
oppose and protest a war.

Derek

> This presumption, that a citizen of the United States may speak
> freely within the confines of the United States, but not outside
> them, implies rather strongly that "freedom of speech", whatever
> that is, is _granted_ by the _Government_ of the United States, and
> somehow disappears if one leaves the country.
>
> That diverges radically from my understanding of "rights" (whatever
> those are), which I had heretofore presumed originated with the
> _individual_, with the First Amendment of the US Constitution only
> attempting to guarantee that the US government would not infringe
> upon the particular one of "freedom of speech".
>
> Ms. Sheehan is a well-intentioned woman whose son has been killed,
> in a cause which she considers wrong, and she is trying to make his
> death matter. Let her talk. Wrong or right, her words will have to
> survive in the marketplace of ideas.
>
> [Just to reveal my own personal bias, if her presentations at all
> undermine the massive propaganda machinery of the whole US
> government, I say good for her.]
>
> Regards,
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Michael:
> >
> > I'm glad you asked the question you did. I'm horrified that I may
> > have given the impression you apparently got. I should have been
> more
> > clear.
> >
> > For me, the key factor is whether it's done on America's shores or
> > not. To me there is a HUGE difference between criticizing a war
> that
> > one believes to be unjust, and taking such criticism overseas, as
> > Sheehan has done. I have near-unlimited tolerance for the former,
> and
> > very very little for the latter. When she was doing her thing in
> > Crawford, she was just another annoying war protestor. Seeing her
> > appear outside the US Embassy in Madrid, and alongside Hugo Chavez
> in
> > Caracas is another matter entirely, and to me, comes very very
> close
> > to giving encouragement to America's enemies - the same enemies
> that
> > killed her son. How long until she shows up in Havana? - note,
> I'm in
> > favor of greatly relaxing the embargo against Cuba, since it should
> > hasten the arrival of the day when Cubans do to Castro what the
> > Romanians did to Ceauºescu.
> >
> > No, I absolutely do not believe all wars are justified. For
> instance,
> > I believe we should not have been involved in the Bosnian conflict,
> > and we should not be involved in Sudan or the Ivory Coast, because
> I
> > don't believe American interests were or are at stake. Whereas in
> > Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea I believe American
> interests
> > are at stake.
> >
> > Consider Vietnam. While I would have disagreed with all the
> > protestors trying to end that conflict, I don't necessarily
> consider
> > any of them unpatriotic for trying to end it, as I admit there were
> > some valid viewpoints. However, working within the US to raise
> > consciousness about why one believes a war to be unjust is entirely
> > different from what for instance, Jane Fonda did.
> >
> > -Derek
> >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

--
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

Starchild:

This will take some time to answer properly.

I do think that for instance, the Rosenbergs committed treason.
Because I don't believe a state has the moral authority to execute
someone,(although I think victims' families do in the case of a 1st
degree capital crime) I would support life in prison for similar acts
to what the Rosenbergs did.

There may be other treasonous circumstance, but this is a very
complicated topic so I need a few days to think it through.

Maybe also a soldier who gives battle plans to the enemy.

There may be others. Give me some time.

Derek,

  Doesn't it depend on who the enemy is, and on the nature of the government being "betrayed?" For instance, the plotters who tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler shouldn't have been punished for treason, should they?

  Or what if someone started a libertarian country called Oceania, the U.S. government (USgov) reacted hostilely toward it, and an Oceanian sympathizer in the U.S. military gave USgov battle plans to the Oceanian government, or a married libertarian couple gave the Oceanians classified USgov information on building nuclear weapons? Should American libertarians regard such individuals as traitors, or heros? I'd say the latter.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Starchild:

This will take some time to answer properly.

I do think that for instance, the Rosenbergs committed treason.
Because I don't believe a state has the moral authority to execute
someone,(although I think victims' families do in the case of a 1st
degree capital crime) I would support life in prison for similar acts
to what the Rosenbergs did.

There may be other treasonous circumstance, but this is a very
complicated topic so I need a few days to think it through.

Maybe also a soldier who gives battle plans to the enemy.

There may be others. Give me some time.

> Derek,
>
> So you believe that laws against "treason" should be repealed? If not,
> what acts should legally be considered "treason" and remain against the
> law, and how would you justify such laws in libertarian terms?
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
> > Allen:
> >
> > I don't think what I said implies that freedom of speech is at all
> > somehow granted by the government.
> >
> > I believe one really does have a responsibility to act differently
> > when one is outside the USA. When one is abroad, one is a
> > representative of the USA as a whole and should act that way. And,
> > certain limits should be respected by civilized people even with the
> > USA -- such as not burning American flags. I would not support
> > government restrictions on any of these things though. It seems that
> > some people on this board are making the mistake of confusing
> > positions I espouse with supporting government restrictions of the
> > same.
> >
> > People should be free to make asses of themselves even overseas, just
> > as Cindy Sheehan is proving over and over.
> >
> > Yes I consider Sheehan a traitor and yes I think her actions are
> > probably giving encouragement and relief to the enemy and causing many
> > more Casey Sheehans to be killed.
> >
> > All that said, I certainly agree that it is not per se unpatriotic to
> > oppose and protest a war.
> >
> > Derek
> >
> > > This presumption, that a citizen of the United States may speak
> > > freely within the confines of the United States, but not outside
> > > them, implies rather strongly that "freedom of speech", whatever
> > > that is, is _granted_ by the _Government_ of the United States, and
> > > somehow disappears if one leaves the country.
> > >
> > > That diverges radically from my understanding of "rights" (whatever
> > > those are), which I had heretofore presumed originated with the
> > > _individual_, with the First Amendment of the US Constitution only
> > > attempting to guarantee that the US government would not infringe
> > > upon the particular one of "freedom of speech".
> > >
> > > Ms. Sheehan is a well-intentioned woman whose son has been killed,
> > > in a cause which she considers wrong, and she is trying to make his
> > > death matter. Let her talk. Wrong or right, her words will have to
> > > survive in the marketplace of ideas.
> > >
> > > [Just to reveal my own personal bias, if her presentations at all
> > > undermine the massive propaganda machinery of the whole US
> > > government, I say good for her.]
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Allen Rice
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Michael:
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad you asked the question you did. I'm horrified that I may
> > > > have given the impression you apparently got. I should have been
> > > more
> > > > clear.
> > > >
> > > > For me, the key factor is whether it's done on America's shores or
> > > > not. To me there is a HUGE difference between criticizing a war
> > > that
> > > > one believes to be unjust, and taking such criticism overseas, as
> > > > Sheehan has done. I have near-unlimited tolerance for the former,
> > > and
> > > > very very little for the latter. When she was doing her thing in
> > > > Crawford, she was just another annoying war protestor. Seeing her
> > > > appear outside the US Embassy in Madrid, and alongside Hugo Chavez
> > > in
> > > > Caracas is another matter entirely, and to me, comes very very
> > > close
> > > > to giving encouragement to America's enemies - the same enemies
> > > that
> > > > killed her son. How long until she shows up in Havana? - note,
> > > I'm in
> > > > favor of greatly relaxing the embargo against Cuba, since it should
> > > > hasten the arrival of the day when Cubans do to Castro what the
> > > > Romanians did to Ceauºescu.
> > > >
> > > > No, I absolutely do not believe all wars are justified. For
> > > instance,
> > > > I believe we should not have been involved in the Bosnian conflict,
> > > > and we should not be involved in Sudan or the Ivory Coast, because
> > > I
> > > > don't believe American interests were or are at stake. Whereas in
> > > > Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea I believe American
> > > interests
> > > > are at stake.
> > > >
> > > > Consider Vietnam. While I would have disagreed with all the
> > > > protestors trying to end that conflict, I don't necessarily
> > > consider
> > > > any of them unpatriotic for trying to end it, as I admit there were
> > > > some valid viewpoints. However, working within the US to raise
> > > > consciousness about why one believes a war to be unjust is entirely
> > > > different from what for instance, Jane Fonda did.
> > > >
> > > > -Derek
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
> > --
> > View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
>

--
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

P.S. - I put "betrayed" in quotes below because one can't really be said to betray that to which one has no allegiance in the first place, and since people *are* sovereign individuals responsible for making their own choices, we shouldn't assume that an individual owes allegiance to, identifies with, or feels sympathy toward a particular government just because he or she lives in an area under that government's control.

    <<< starchild >>>

Terry & Derek,

  I see Kim Il Jong, and to a lesser degree Hugo Chavez and George Bush, as acting contrary to the cause of liberty. To some extent that makes them my enemies, although in my better moments I try to look at them from the perspective of "hate the sin, love the sinner."

  To the extent that they oppose liberty, those who support liberty should oppose them. But who cares one way or another if they threaten "our national interests?" I don't have any "national interests." Why should the interests of a particular nation, as opposed to the interests of liberty, be of concern to libertarians one way or the other?

  If we should take up the interests of a particular nation, it seems an open choice as to which nation would be the most appropriate choice. The United States comes in 9th this year on one reputable ranking of economic liberty (see below). I shudder to think where the U.S. would place in a civil liberties ranking right now.
  
Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Heritage Foundation - 2006 Index of Economic Freedom - Top 10 Countries

Starchild:

Doesn't it seem odd that the UK and Denmark are both ranked higher
than the US in terms of economic freedom?

Denmark is second only to Sweden in OECD countries with respect to tax
burdens, and the UK has socialized medicine.

I agree with Ireland, Estonia, Singapore, Hong Kong being ahead of the US.

Here's something interesting: in my job I meet with lots of venture
capitalists and private equity firms. The way it works is you have a
number of managing general partners, who make decisions on how to
invest the money. These firms then raise the bulk of their funds from
"limited partners", who invest money, but have little to no say in how
it is invested. The general partners take a "management fee" of funds
under management and also a cut of the total profits, based on how
well the fund's investments do, usually over the course of 4 to 5
years.

OK, so why is this interesting? The Government of Singapore is one of
the largest limited partners in these kinds of funds in the world. I
see them showing up all the time. That is, they take money from their
citizens and then go invest it in venture capital investments.
Obviously they don't trust the private markets enough to correctly
allocate capital to it's most productive uses.

-Derek

Starchild:

The plotters who tried to assassinate Hitler were indeed traitors to
the Third Reich, but heroes nonetheless.

Here's the thing which I have concluded through these recent debates:
At my core, I am an American first and a libertarian second. My
patriotism comes before my ideology. So, my first reaction toward
events tends to be that which advances American interests. This
probably has to do in part with growing up in a lower middle class
town during the Reagan era (I was 8 when he beat Carter) I would
surmise that most of the people on this board place ideology over
loyalty to one's country.

-Derek

Dear Derek;

Since you espouse America First then ideology how would you answer
this question?

What will a "Victory in Iraq" mean for America and Americans?

Cheney was asked this by a Marine when he was there a week or so ago
and Cheney dodged the answer.

Derek - You are given complete freedom to define the words "Victory
in Iraq". Then provide the answer to the question based on your
definition of "Victory In Iraq".

Be careful of how you define "Victory in Iraq" keeping in mind the
PR types who dreamed up the banner " Mission Accomplished" for Bush.

On May 1 that'll be 3 years ago - 2,200 KIA's - 15,000 wounded half
(!!!) of whom have had to be medically discharged including some
1,000 with losses of arms and legs and several hundreds with severe
facial and cranial disfigurements - some 20,000 plus Iraqi
collateral damage casualties and a couple hundred billion in
additional national debt.

For setting the stage I include this url for an article title: Ron
Kovic: The Forgotten Wounded of Iraq - and what it meant to him to
be only wounded. It should be required reading of every armchair
general in the Bush administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060119/cm_huffpost/014056

Enjoy the challenge!!!!!

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:

Starchild:

The plotters who tried to assassinate Hitler were indeed traitors

to

the Third Reich, but heroes nonetheless.

Here's the thing which I have concluded through these recent

debates:

At my core, I am an American first and a libertarian second. My
patriotism comes before my ideology. So, my first reaction toward
events tends to be that which advances American interests. This
probably has to do in part with growing up in a lower middle class
town during the Reagan era (I was 8 when he beat Carter) I would
surmise that most of the people on this board place ideology over
loyalty to one's country.

-Derek

> Derek,
>
> Doesn't it depend on who the enemy is, and on the nature

of the

> government being "betrayed?" For instance, the plotters who

tried to

> assassinate Adolf Hitler shouldn't have been punished for

treason,

> should they?
>
> Or what if someone started a libertarian country called

Oceania, the

> U.S. government (USgov) reacted hostilely toward it, and an

Oceanian

> sympathizer in the U.S. military gave USgov battle plans to the
> Oceanian government, or a married libertarian couple gave the

Oceanians

> classified USgov information on building nuclear weapons? Should
> American libertarians regard such individuals as traitors, or

heros?

> I'd say the latter.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Starchild:
> >
> > This will take some time to answer properly.
> >
> > I do think that for instance, the Rosenbergs committed treason.
> > Because I don't believe a state has the moral authority to

execute

> > someone,(although I think victims' families do in the case of

a 1st

> > degree capital crime) I would support life in prison for

similar acts

> > to what the Rosenbergs did.
> >
> > There may be other treasonous circumstance, but this is a very
> > complicated topic so I need a few days to think it through.
> >
> > Maybe also a soldier who gives battle plans to the enemy.
> >
> > There may be others. Give me some time.
> >
> > > Derek,
> > >
> > > So you believe that laws against "treason" should be

repealed?

> > If not,
> > > what acts should legally be considered "treason" and remain

against

> > the
> > > law, and how would you justify such laws in libertarian

terms?

> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> > > <<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Allen:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think what I said implies that freedom of speech

is at all

> > > > somehow granted by the government.
> > > >
> > > > I believe one really does have a responsibility to act

differently

> > > > when one is outside the USA. When one is abroad, one is a
> > > > representative of the USA as a whole and should act that

way. And,

> > > > certain limits should be respected by civilized people

even with

> > the
> > > > USA -- such as not burning American flags. I would not

support

> > > > government restrictions on any of these things though. It

seems

> > that
> > > > some people on this board are making the mistake of

confusing

> > > > positions I espouse with supporting government

restrictions of the

> > > > same.
> > > >
> > > > People should be free to make asses of themselves even

overseas,

> > just
> > > > as Cindy Sheehan is proving over and over.
> > > >
> > > > Yes I consider Sheehan a traitor and yes I think her

actions are

> > > > probably giving encouragement and relief to the enemy and

causing

> > many
> > > > more Casey Sheehans to be killed.
> > > >
> > > > All that said, I certainly agree that it is not per se

unpatriotic

> > to
> > > > oppose and protest a war.
> > > >
> > > > Derek
> > > >
> > > > > This presumption, that a citizen of the United States

may speak

> > > > > freely within the confines of the United States, but not

outside

> > > > > them, implies rather strongly that "freedom of speech",

whatever

> > > > > that is, is _granted_ by the _Government_ of the United

States,

> > and
> > > > > somehow disappears if one leaves the country.
> > > > >
> > > > > That diverges radically from my understanding of "rights"
> > (whatever
> > > > > those are), which I had heretofore presumed originated

with the

> > > > > _individual_, with the First Amendment of the US

Constitution

> > only
> > > > > attempting to guarantee that the US government would not

infringe

> > > > > upon the particular one of "freedom of speech".
> > > > >
> > > > > Ms. Sheehan is a well-intentioned woman whose son has

been

> > killed,
> > > > > in a cause which she considers wrong, and she is trying

to make

> > his
> > > > > death matter. Let her talk. Wrong or right, her words

will

> > have to
> > > > > survive in the marketplace of ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Just to reveal my own personal bias, if her

presentations at all

> > > > > undermine the massive propaganda machinery of the whole

US

> > > > > government, I say good for her.]
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Allen Rice
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen

<derekj72@g...>

> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Michael:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm glad you asked the question you did. I'm horrified

that I

> > may
> > > > > > have given the impression you apparently got. I should

have

> > been
> > > > > more
> > > > > > clear.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For me, the key factor is whether it's done on

America's

> > shores or
> > > > > > not. To me there is a HUGE difference between

criticizing a

> > war
> > > > > that
> > > > > > one believes to be unjust, and taking such criticism

overseas,

> > as
> > > > > > Sheehan has done. I have near-unlimited tolerance for

the

> > former,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > very very little for the latter. When she was doing

her thing

> > in
> > > > > > Crawford, she was just another annoying war protestor.

Seeing

> > her
> > > > > > appear outside the US Embassy in Madrid, and alongside

Hugo

> > Chavez
> > > > > in
> > > > > > Caracas is another matter entirely, and to me, comes

very very

> > > > > close
> > > > > > to giving encouragement to America's enemies - the

same enemies

> > > > > that
> > > > > > killed her son. How long until she shows up in

Havana? - note,

> > > > > I'm in
> > > > > > favor of greatly relaxing the embargo against Cuba,

since it

> > should
> > > > > > hasten the arrival of the day when Cubans do to Castro

what the

> > > > > > Romanians did to Ceauºescu.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, I absolutely do not believe all wars are

justified. For

> > > > > instance,
> > > > > > I believe we should not have been involved in the

Bosnian

> > conflict,
> > > > > > and we should not be involved in Sudan or the Ivory

Coast,

> > because
> > > > > I
> > > > > > don't believe American interests were or are at stake.
> > Whereas in
> > > > > > Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea I believe

American

> > > > > interests
> > > > > > are at stake.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consider Vietnam. While I would have disagreed with

all the

> > > > > > protestors trying to end that conflict, I don't

necessarily

> > > > > consider
> > > > > > any of them unpatriotic for trying to end it, as I

admit there

> > were
> > > > > > some valid viewpoints. However, working within the US

to raise

> > > > > > consciousness about why one believes a war to be

unjust is

> > entirely
> > > > > > different from what for instance, Jane Fonda did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Derek
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > <image.tiff>
> > > >
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> > > >
> > > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms

of

> > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > <image.tiff>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms

of Service.

Ron:

I didn't espouse anything. I just remarked that that was how I'm
wired. Be careful not to extrapolate.

Ron,

Nevertheless, I think it's a very valid question: What will a "Victory
in Iraq" mean for America and Americans? and to me, it's the right
question to ask. I accept your challenge.

-Derek